There an interesting article posted by ING that stated that more colleges are starting to look at a person's ability to pay the full cost of tuition before admission, and in some cases is was more of a factor than grades.

Quote

A recent study conducted by Inside Higher Ed blew the doors off of the ivory tower’s surprising secret, showing that indeed, a student’s ability to pay the full-price of tuition and room and board (which can run close to $50,000 a year at some private universities) is a determinant in accepting a student. The study, which involved 462 admissions directors and enrollment managers, showed that a top goal of admissions directors is to recruit students who can pay full boat. Plus, more than half of the gatekeepers at public research universities and more than a third at four-year colleges said that they’ve been concentrating on recruiting students who can pay full price and don’t need financial aid. And admission directors at public universities said that they’re actively recruiting out-of-state and international students – after all, both groups have to pay significantly more than in-state students. But what may be the most discouraging news of all is that almost 10% of admission directors candidly admitted that the full-paying students who were admitted had on average lower test scores and grades than the other admitted students.

College is partly suppose to be a class evening factor, but if the ability to pay (even with loans) is part of the equation, it throws that out the window. I am not sure why financial aid is such a big deal, they will get their money either way. Sure they have to have a financial aid office, but most people that go to college need some sort of aid.

I am no expert in the area, but this almost seems like discrimination (at least at public universities). At a minimum its morally wrong, to me. Colleges, especially land-grants, are schools that are suppose to be for everyone, for the common man. This practice of deciding based on financial aid, funding source, etc. needs to stop.

Thats a good question and I am not sure of the best way. What I do know is that the current system does not work well for everyone. Often times, students cannot get enough Stafford Loans to cover tuition (especially not enough subsidized). Why is parent's income counted as a determining factor for loans and grants?... not all parents pay for college for their child.

Aid is essentially determined by factors related to age, marital status, undergraduate degree, veteran, have children, foster care, legal guardianship, etc. An example of why this does not work:

Jenny is 21 and has a child. Her parents make over 1 million dollars per year and they pay for all of Jenny's needs; Jenny does not work and attends school full time. Jenny will likely get a Pell grant and can get the maximum amounts for Stafford Loans.

Susan is 21 and lives on her own. She holds down 2 jobs (making on average $7/hr) and goes to school full time. She is independent of her parents, pays her own bills, lives on her own, and does not rely on her parents in an way. Susan's parent's make about $70,000/yr and Susan herself only makes about $7,000/yr. Susan will probably not qualify for a Pell Grant and she will likely be limited on the subsidized loans she can get.

Sure does not sound fair to me. -thats how it makes me feel sometimes.

Of course all of this does not take into account the rising costs of college; our inability to meet demand in certain career fields; and the fact that student loan debt has surpassed credit card debt (and the economy is bad and student loans follow you though bankruptcy, etc, etc)... all related to student aid.